Aids to the Study of the Maya Codices: Sixth Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology to the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, 1884-85, Government Printing Office, Washington, 1888, pages 253-372Thomas, Cyrus
History
Aids to the Study of the Maya Codices: Sixth Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology to the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, 1884-85, Government Printing Office, Washington, 1888, pages 253-372
Thomas, Cyrus
Codex Dresdensis Maya; Maya language
"To render clear the answer which we proceed to give, it is first
necessary to remark that of the 39 leaves of the codex 35 are written on
both sides and 4 on one side only, so that we can speak only of 74 pages
of manuscript, not of 78. These 74 pages we shall in the following always
designate by the numbers which they bear in Lord Kingsborough, and it is
advisable to abide by these numbers, for the sake of avoiding all error,
until the manuscript can be read with perfect certainty; the 4 empty
pages I shall designate with 0 when there is need of mentioning them
expressly.
"Furthermore it is necessary to state which of these pages so numbered
belong together in such way that they are the front and back of the same
leaf. This condition is as follows: One leaf is formed of pages 1 45, 2
44, 3 43, 4 42, 5 41, 6 40, 7 39, 8 38, 9 37, 10 36, 11 35, 12 34, 13 33,
14 32, 15 31, 16 30, 17 29, 18 0, 19 0, 20 0, 21 28, 22 27, 23 26, 24 25,
46 74, 47 73, 48 72, 49 71, 50 70, 51 69, 52 68, 53 67, 54 66, 55 65, 56
64, 57 63, 58 62, 59 61, 60 0. [That is to say, each pair of this series
forms one leaf, one page on one side and the other on the reverse side of
the leaf.]
"But now we are justified in the assumption, which at least is very
probable, that neither did Aglio change arbitrarily the order of the
original, nor Lord Kingsborough the order of Aglio. Consequently Aglio
must already have had the manuscript before him in two pieces, be it that
the thin pellicles by which the single leaves are connected were loosened
in one place or that the whole was separated only then in order not to be
obliged to manipulate the whole unwieldy strip in the operation of
copying. A third possibility, to which we shall presently return, is that
of assuming two separate pieces from the beginning; in this case Götze
and the others must be supposed to have seen it in this condition, but to
have omitted the mention of the circumstance, believing that the original
unity had been destroyed by tearing.
"Of the two pieces one must have comprised 24, the other 15 leaves. But
Aglio copied each of the two pieces in such way as to trace first the
whole of one side and then the other of the entire piece, always
progressing from left to right, in European style. Therefore Aglio's
model was as follows:
"_First piece_:
"Front (from left to right): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13,
14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24.
"Back (from right to left): 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35,
34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 0, 0, 0, 28, 27, 26, 25.
"_Second piece_:
"Front (from left to right): 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56,
57, 58, 59, 60.
"Back (from right to left): 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64,
63, 62, 61, 0.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account